1 Wednesday, 22 October 2008
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 8.32 a.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, please call
6 the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning,
8 everyone in and around the courtroom.
9 This is case number IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor versus
10 Vojislav Seselj.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Madam.
12 Today is Wednesday, October 22nd, 2008. Good morning to
13 Ms. Biersay, Mr. Mundis, their case manager, as well as Mr. Seselj and
14 everyone in this courtroom.
15 We are going to have the witness brought in, Ms. Tabeau.
16 [The witness entered court]
17 WITNESS: EWA TABEAU [Resumed]
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good morning, Ms. Tabeau.
19 We are going to proceed with the cross-examination, and I'm going
20 to give the floor to Mr. Seselj.
21 Cross-examination by Mr. Seselj: [Continued]
22 Q. Ms. Tabeau, I'm going to start with a question, but it's a bit
23 more extensive, and I'm not going to resort to that again. After that,
24 my questions will be very short, so please listen to me very carefully.
25 I will try to present a paradigm here, showing a proper methodological
1 approach that would be applied by a serious scholar who were to be given
2 the assignment you got, the emigration of Croats and other non-Serbs from
3 Hrtkovci in 1992. If you listen to me carefully, I'm going to ask you if
4 you agree with this paradigm of a methodological approach.
5 If a serious scientist or scholar were to be given this
6 assignment, he would first -- he or she would first have to acquaint
7 himself or herself with socio-political circumstances that have to be
8 resolved. This person would see that a state existed there that was
9 called Yugoslavia
10 that some Croats moved out of Serbia
11 federal units of that former country of Yugoslavia.
12 So, in order for the methodological approach to be the right one,
13 a serious scientist would take into account the following data: A
14 statistical review of the census, the latest census in Croatia, that is
15 to say, from 1991; a statistical review of the national population of
17 lived in Serbia
18 she would take the Croatian census from 2001, I believe it was, and the
19 2002 census in Serbia
20 Croats living in Serbia
22 preliminary conclusion.
23 Would you agree with this methodological approach as being a
24 right one?
25 A. Well, as a starting point, yes, of course; but as we discussed
1 yesterday, this approach would be biased by the changing perceptions of
2 ethnicity between 1991 and 2002 or 2001, the census in Croatia.
3 Q. How did this perception of ethnicity change? Could you explain
5 A. As we discussed yesterday, some people declared themselves in
6 different ways between 1991 and 2002, and this has, of course, impact on
7 statistics presented on the basis of the census data.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Ms. Tabeau. You've
9 just said something that had escaped me. There was a census in 1991.
10 Apparently, according to Mr. Seselj - and he's probably checked that -
11 apparently, there was a census in Croatia in 2001 and a census in 2002 in
13 You say that there may have been a change or a changing perception in the
14 way people declared their ethnicity. Let's take the example of someone
15 who declared himself as a Croat; whereas, he could have declared himself
16 as a Serb. Others, apparently, declared themselves as Serbs; whereas,
17 they could have declared themselves as Croats. Is it what you have just
19 THE WITNESS: I rather had in mind the Yugoslavs and the changes
20 in perceptions of Yugoslavs at the time in both countries, yes.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, of course, for the
22 Yugoslavs, it's quite understandable. But could the same thing have
23 happened for Croats or Serbs who may have decided to declare themselves
24 Croats because their names sound Croat, or someone may have decided to
25 declare himself as a Serb because he has a Serb cousin? In other words,
1 have you identified cases of people who declared themselves as belonging
2 to a certain ethnicity; whereas, it was not that clear-cut?
3 THE WITNESS: It is possible for any ethnic group, most certainly
4 for Croats and Serbs, but I would expect that for Yugoslavs, the numbers
5 of these changing perceptions would be higher than for other ethnic
6 groups. So I would expect that we wouldn't see many cases of Croats
7 reporting themselves as Serbs in Vojvodina; and, on the other hand, in
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm going to be more specific
10 in my question. We've heard evidence suggesting that there were mixed
11 marriages, and no one can deny that there were mixed marriages. Let's
12 take the case of a Serb -- of a wedding between a Serb and a Croat.
13 Let's take the case of the child of this couple, who has a Serb mother
14 and a Croatian father. A census happens, this child is asked what ethnic
15 group he belongs to. What is going to be the answer, Croat, Serb,
16 Yugoslav, maybe 1991? How can you approach that type of situation in
17 statistics? Does that produce a margin of error in the statistic,
18 because I'm sure that that type of cases may have happened. Some people
19 may have decided to report themselves as Croats or Serbs; whereas, they
20 could have decided to do exactly the opposite.
21 THE WITNESS: Well, most certainly, it has impact on statistics.
22 In the case of this particular family, with parents being one Croat,
23 another Serb, any option is possible. The child could have been reported
24 as a Croat, as a Serb, a Serbo-Croat, or a Yugoslav. Anything is
1 In order to quantify the impact of the reporting and the changing
2 perceptions, it is necessary to work with individual data and to link
3 individuals reported in 1991 census with the record of the same person in
4 the 2002 census. And by comparing reporting on the individual level, it
5 is possible to quantify the impact of changes in perceptions of
6 ethnicity. I couldn't do it, and I don't think it is possible by using
7 aggregate census statistics as published. So this approach Mr. Seselj
8 mentioned is biased, whether he wants it or not. It is not a good
9 starting point, anyway.
10 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Witness, talking about this
11 individual perception and individual choices, in cases such as the ones
12 identified by the Presiding Judge, you are talking about an individual
13 choice. But this choice, wasn't it influenced by your faith, by the fact
14 that the person was Orthodox or Catholic? That's the result of the
15 choice of your parents when you are born, when they decide what sort of
16 religion you're going to belong to. So would that choice be -- depend on
17 your religion? In other words, ethnicity is very much connected to
18 religion .
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before you answer, let me add
20 this to the question put to you by my colleague: Witnesses here told us
21 that in the previous system, in the communist system, Catholics didn't
22 want anyone to know that they were Catholics because it was -- it could
23 be detrimental for them. Therefore, this religious factor mentioned by
24 my fellow Judge, could it have an impact during the census of 1991, when
25 the country was still in existence? Did you take that into account as a
1 demographer, that people, for religious reasons, the ones identified by
2 my fellow Judges, that people may have decided to choose a specific
3 ethnic group, but that because of the political system in place, they
4 were not in a position to declare themselves freely because it was not
5 such a good idea under the existing system? Well, did you take all this
6 into account?
7 THE WITNESS: There is a high correspondence between ethnicity
8 and religion, but there is no one-to-one correspondence. I studied this
9 using the census data for Bosnia and Herzegovina, and it is not that
10 every Croat is Catholic and every Serb is Orthodox, but the correlation
11 of these two is extremely high. So one of the main components of
12 identifying a person as being a Croat, Serb, Hungarian, is religion; and,
13 of course, Croats would be mainly Catholics and Serbs mainly Orthodox.
14 But ethnicity is a broader term. It is not only religion that is
15 one of the component dimensions of ethnicity. It is generally the
16 cultural, common history, common language, common traditions, and so on
17 and so on. Of course, there were studies of ethnicity using all kinds of
18 definitions. There were studies that have taken religion as the major
19 and only component of ethnicity, but it is broader than that.
20 How people report themselves in the census, well, this is a good
21 question. I believe that religion is the main determining factor, but
22 there are also other factors; and especially in politically unstable
23 times, economically unstable times, people take into account the
24 situation. They do what is better for them.
25 I wouldn't think that this had a major impact on my study on
1 Hrtkovci. I think, in this case, the Catholic population of Hrtkovci was
2 mainly Croats and Hungarians. This is how it was. So I think in this
3 particular case, the religion is a good proxy for ethnicity, simply
4 speaking, yeah.
5 I hope I answered the question.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Madam Tabeau, did you come across any information
7 that would suggest that people could register themselves as Yugoslav as a
8 result of a deliberate political determination not to be associated with
9 any of the ethnical groups in the former Yugoslavia; that is to say,
10 somebody, even though he perhaps was born by Serb parents and was
11 Orthodox by religion, he would, for political reasons, not wish to
12 declare him or herself as a Serb? Could that also be part of the group
13 of Yugoslavs registered in your review?
14 THE WITNESS: Well, I couldn't study this for Vojvodina and
15 Hrtkovci because this would require that I had at least the individual
16 data from the two censuses, 1991 and 2002; and then, empirically, I could
17 compare and check these kind of situations.
18 I did study the data for Bosnia
19 census for Bosnia
20 the census in 1991. But there is -- there are a lot of sources on war
21 victims that report ethnicity as well, and then you see clearly cases of
22 changing ethnicity in relation to the ethnicity reported in the 1991
23 census. Then Yugoslavs would be reported as victims of a concrete ethnic
24 group; well, but this is a totally situation.
25 You are speaking here of a surviving population, people who are
1 alive and want to have a good life. So this is not really comparable to
2 the example I mentioned. Well, so it's better not to speculate in this
3 case, right?
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: I understand. Thank you.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you may proceed. I
6 hope that we have not encroached on any issues you, yourself, wanted to
7 raise during your cross-examination.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You brought up many questions now,
9 but I'll make an effort to remember all of them and, in a way, to have
10 the witness clarify each and every one of these questions, to the extent
11 possible, of course. This is very complex subject matter, and I hope
12 that you will grant my request to give me more time for
13 cross-examination. I will only deal with the expert report from a
14 professional point of view. I won't go into anything else.
15 Q. Ms. Tabeau, you mentioned something here that had to do with the
16 change in the way citizens were declaring themselves ethnically. You
17 mentioned that as an argument against my paradigm of a methodological
18 approach, the one that I referred to. You said that that methodological
19 approach would be applicable if it weren't for that. However, there's
20 another thing that has to be taken into account.
21 According to the 1991 census, there is between 600.000 and
22 700.000 declared Serbs in Croatia
23 and then there's the latest census in Croatia, stating that there is
24 somewhat less than 200.000 Serbs in Croatia. This must have impressed
25 you, this difference, this decline in the number of Serbs, because on the
1 one hand you have only 15.000 or 16.000 Croats, right? On the one hand,
2 you have half a million Serbs and the Yugoslavs disappeared. We don't
3 know where they disappeared, although there's literature devoted to that
4 subject, too. Then, on the other hand, the difference or number of
5 Croats is only 15.000 or 16.000 between 1991 and 2002. Am I not right?
6 A. The number of Serbs in the 1991 census is 570.000 or, say, about
7 580.000. It is not 600 or 700. I have here in front of me the published
8 statistics from the 1991 census, and I can give you the specific numbers.
9 So let's stick to the published statistics. It is 580.000,
10 approximately, Serbs in 1991. And in the year 2001, there was indeed
11 about 200.000 Serbs in Croatia
12 Q. That's roughly 600.000, isn't it? It's roughly 600.000, and now
13 you have 200.000, so not half a million, but the difference is 400.000.
14 So what is it that you think I've not said properly? I have. I have a
15 recollection of the facts. But the figure of 400.000 Serbs who had
16 disappeared must have made an impression on you. Am I right?
17 A. It is 380, the difference between the two censuses. It is a lot,
18 of course, of individuals, and it is not about impressing me with any
19 number of this kind because it is a tragic number, simply speaking, if
20 you think of the consequences of this change.
21 Okay. You mentioned also some other numbers, just speaking about
22 the literature, and the difference of Croats, you were saying, is 15.000,
23 16.000. I wouldn't know what literature, so I can't comment on this.
24 I can give you the change in the number of the Croats according to the
25 census, but I believe it is not what you wanted to say. So please
1 clarify on the Croats.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Tabeau, we all seem to
3 agree now that in Croatia
4 censuses of 1991 and 2002, so it declined by 380.000. 380.000 Serbs left
6 and no one can challenge it because this is something you can see in the
7 census. But there's something I would like to know because I need to
8 know this in order to understand this.
9 Between the two censuses in 1991 and 2002 in Vojvodina, how many
10 Croats left Vojvodina to go to Croatia
11 Croats are we talking about? We need to have that figure in order to
12 compare statistics.
13 THE WITNESS: Well, we can do this based on the census data
14 exactly the same way we have done just now for Croatia, knowing that
15 these numbers are not perfect and biased by certain factors. I made a
16 table which is included in my report, and all this data is there in the
17 report. So if you have my report in front of you, please take a look
18 at --
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Can you please give us the page
21 THE WITNESS: It is page 12 in the English version, table 2.
22 This table contains statistics, aggregate statistics, from two censuses,
23 the 1991 census and the 2002 census.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, that really has no sense.
25 The other table -- oh, that's a picture. Right, right. My mistake.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, you were mistaken.
2 Yes, please proceed, Madam Tabeau.
3 THE WITNESS: In the paragraph after -- on the next page, after
4 the four charts, group of charts, four charts, there is a paragraph just
5 at the bottom of these charts in which I discuss the change in the ethnic
6 composition. In this paragraph, I am saying there is 16.000 of Croats
7 that are less in the 2002 census, compared with 1991.
8 I want to mention, we are speaking of a population of Vojvodina,
9 which is much smaller than the population of Croatia, and this is only
10 two million people, approximately. When it comes to the Croatian
11 population in Vojvodina, it is about 72 and a half -- 73.000 individuals
12 in the 1991 census, as compared to approximately 57.000 in 2002 census.
13 This is the Croats only, so it is a small group of people, basically
14 speaking, that was reported in 1991, and this group became even smaller
15 in 2002.
16 I would also like to draw your attention to Hungarians. This is
17 a bigger population. It was a bigger population and is a bigger
18 population in Vojvodina. This population in 1991 was more than 300.000,
19 333.000 of people, and became 290.000. So here the decline is, in
20 absolute terms, larger. It is a decline of about 43.000 people. These
21 are also non-Serbs. I'm not speaking about the Yugoslavs. Their decline
22 is the highest in this group, but I don't think it is necessary to
23 include them at this stage among the non-Serbs. But as to these two
24 groups, Croats and Hungarians, which are also the groups that I analysed
25 in my report, these are the Catholics in the village, and here are
1 Catholics in the province.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] For the transcript and for the
3 sake of clarity, let me say the following: The 380.000 Serbs left
5 see at page 12 of your report, we find that 16.000 Croats left Vojvodina,
6 15.982 exactly. I did my math. So about 16.000 Croats left Vojvodina,
7 and that's something I'd not quite grasped.
8 Hungarians registered a decline of 43.000 people. So we have
9 three times as much Hungarians who left Vojvodina than Croats, 43.000
10 Hungarians, because at the beginning there were 333.290, and in 2002 you
11 only have 290.000 of them. So when you do your math, you see that there
12 is a difference of 43.000 Hungarians. That's the figures and the
13 statistics we can derive from the census data.
14 A demographer, whether belonging to the OTP or whether being a
15 Serb demographer, would end up with the exact same figures. These
16 figures can't be challenged, Madam Tabeau. Do you agree with me?
17 THE WITNESS: Yes, with one more remark. The timing of
18 departures of both groups is not the same. In Croatia, there were two
19 waves of departures of Croatian Serbs, in 1991, basically, and 1992, and
20 later after Operation Storm and Flash, which would be 1995 and the
21 beginning of 1996.
22 The major wave of these 380.000 is after 1995, summer 1995;
23 whereas, when it comes to Croats from Vojvodina, they were leaving mainly
24 in 1992 and perhaps end of 1991, beginning of 1993. But that is the
25 timing. So the timing is an important factor in the analysis of this
1 figure. If this expert wouldn't take this into account, so then the
2 starting point based on the official data would be wrong, simply, without
3 mentioning the timing.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I just have one question, and
5 then I will give the floor to my fellow Judge.
6 I've just discovered that we have also a Hungarian question, with
7 43.000 Hungarians who left between 1991 and 2002. In the indictment,
8 Hungarians are also mentioned. There's not only mention of Croats, but
9 also Hungarians. So why is it that you didn't go into detail when it
10 came to Hungarians?
11 You focused your study on the Croats and didn't really look into
12 the problem of the Hungarians, even though they're three times more
13 numerous. Is there a reason for that, or is it because the Prosecutor
14 didn't really ask you to focus on this population?
15 THE WITNESS: I think I did focus on Hungarians as well. In the
16 title of my report, you can read it, it's "The Out-Migration of Croats
17 and other Non-Serbs," and the other non-Serbs are Hungarians in the first
18 place. And in all analysis I made in this report, it is all ethnic
19 groups. I looked at all the ethnic groups and the Hungarians in the
20 first place as non-Serbs, and the parish records I used represent mainly
21 Croats and Hungarians. So I think my report should be read not only as a
22 discussion of statistics on Croats, but on both Croats and Hungarians.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, you've just raised
24 another question on these church records, these parish records. So
25 regarding the Catholics, there was no difference made between Croats or
1 Hungarians. They were Catholics in the first place; right? The priests
2 in the parish in Vojvodina and some village, when he saw Catholic parents
3 come who wanted to baptize their child, I assume that -- I wonder whether
4 he was asking them, "Are you Croats, Serbs, or Hungarians," or something,
5 or was he just asking, "Are you Catholic," and that's it? So in the
6 parish records, there would only be the names and no reference to the
7 ethnicity of this family, Hungarian or Croat?
8 THE WITNESS: That's right. The church books don't specifically
9 report ethnicity. The names are there, and, to a certain extent,
10 ethnicity can be judged, but not, you know -- this is not that name is an
11 expression of ethnicity.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So all the conclusions drawn
13 from these parish records could involve either Croats or Hungarians, but
14 we don't know whether they are one or the other, unless you try to make a
15 specific analysis from the names. Do we agree with this? All the
16 conclusions drawn from these parish records can mix Croats and Hungarians
17 as Catholics?
18 THE WITNESS: They are both Croats and Hungarians. I don't
19 distinguish using the parish records, how many are Croats, how many are
20 Hungarians. However, what is indicative of ethnicity is their country of
21 destination, and there is a table in my report in which I show where they
22 went to, these people who departed from Hrtkovci. You will see this from
23 this table. We can refer to this table right now.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before dealing with the table,
25 I believe my fellow Judge had a question, and we should listen to her.
1 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Madam Tabeau, I have the
2 following problem: The absolute figures cannot give us a very specific
3 idea of those who left -- of the comparison of those who left Croatia
4 those who left Vojvodina. So wouldn't it have been better to give these
5 figures in percentage rather than in absolute figures? Vojvodina has a
6 very limited number of inhabitants, a limited number of non-Serbs;
7 whereas, in Croatia
8 figures .
9 THE WITNESS: Yes. I include also a lot of figures in the
10 report. It is the same table 2, second panel. However, here, in my
11 table, only ethnic composition is shown. But based on the data from the
12 table, relative measures of what fraction of Croats left can be obtained
13 as well. So it's all there in the report. It all can be calculated, so
14 it can be done.
15 But I have one important remark as well. At the level of
16 Vojvodina, the change in the ethnic composition is minor. You can't see
17 what really happened from statistics for the entire province. It is
18 exactly the same situation in Bosnia
19 composition in the entire country, before the conflict and after the
20 conflict, there is hardly any change at all. Does this mean there were
21 no changes in the ethnic composition in these areas? There were enormous
22 changes, and there were millions of people who left the country or were
23 displaced within the country. So approximately 50 per cent of Bosnia
24 either displaced or refugees in other countries.
25 So what is really meaningful is to understand what was happening
1 in smaller places, within municipalities, within settlements, within
2 villages and towns such as Hrtkovci.
3 So, in the report, I have two tables: Table 1 for Hrtkovci
4 alone, which is a small village, two and a half thousand people; and
5 Vojvodina as a province, as an entire area. If you look at the province,
6 well, you can think, oh, what is the 16.000 of Croats? It's an important
7 number because the Croats were not uniformly distributed over the
8 province. They were living in concentrations in certain places.
9 Hrtkovci was one of the places. What was happening and what is
10 responsible for the 16.000 is a number, not high number of smaller
11 places, where the changes were really dramatic. This is what I'm showing
12 for Hrtkovci as an example and a representative example of several other
13 places within Vojvodina.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me -- well, look at
15 table 9, page 23 in the English version. Maybe we could have it on the
16 screen. It's the table we saw yesterday and everybody asked questions on
17 it, where we have the departures as of May 8, May 10, May 12, May 13, and
18 a peak on the 15th of May and June 10th. Could we have that on the
19 screen, please?
20 Page 23 in your report. It's table 9.
21 MS. BIERSAY: I think it was also marked as MFI P571.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, P571, MFI. Unfortunately,
23 we don't have the table on the screen yet. It's coming. That's not the
25 MS. BIERSAY: It's on the third page, I believe.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Page 23 in the English report.
2 Yes, now we have it.
3 Madam Tabeau, yesterday, when I put questions to you regarding
4 this table, you told us that this was a table that had been drawn up from
5 the parish records using the christening certificates, if I'm not
6 mistaken. But you just told us a minute ago that there could be Croats
7 and Hungarians here. So I believe that in this table 9, these figures
8 represent both Croats and Hungarians. You agree with me; right?
9 THE WITNESS: Yes. These are christening -- these are parish
10 records covering both, yes.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So these figures here in this
12 table do not deal only with Croats; there are Hungarians also in there,
13 Hungarians who left. Now, where did they go, I don't know. Maybe you
14 know. But as of now, we have not heard any Hungarians -- any Hungarian
15 victims who would have told us anything here. I have no idea why these
16 Hungarians would have left in the first place, but all I can do is draw a
17 conclusion that now in table 9, we have not only Croats, but also
19 THE WITNESS: This is correct, this is how the parish records
20 were made, no distinction to ethnicity. But I suggest now we refer to
21 page 30 of the report, table 17. In this table, the overall number of
22 individuals listed in annex A of this report, 722, is shown by the
23 country of destination. And for "to Croatia," as you see, it's the first
24 category, there were 483 persons who left to Croatia. I don't see
25 Hungarian on this list, but there is a category "unavailable," which
1 is 233. Possibly there is Hungarians here. Who knows? But it is
2 unquestionable that the major group of departing were the Croats, in the
3 first place. Otherwise, why would Hungarians go to Croatia if they could
4 go to Hungary
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So table 17 on
6 page 30 --
7 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Table 13 on page 30.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] -- shows the out-migration from
9 May to August 1992 and gives us absolute figures, right, this quantity?
10 Is that it?
11 THE WITNESS: This table shows the out-migration in 1992, not
12 only May to August but also in other months in 1992, as presented in
13 annex A, out-migration of 792 persons to certain destinations. Croatia
14 is one of them, and it's the biggest one, yes.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] 483 go to Croatia; but out of
16 these 483, there could be Hungarians, after all. They could benefit from
17 the Geneva Convention, and they might have gone -- but they also might
18 have gone to Hungary
19 possible that they could be included in this 483?
20 THE WITNESS: No, no. They are not included in 483. This is the
21 Croatian -- Croats, simply, who went to Croatia. Hungarians are not
22 reported under 483.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What source did you use to find
24 these 483 Croats?
25 THE WITNESS: Basically, two sources. One was the refugee table
1 sent to us by the Croat authorities. These are the records of refugees
2 from Hrtkovci from Croatia
3 families that was made by the VS-61. This list included the country of
4 destination, and Croatia
5 this list. It is basically that the list and the parish records are one
6 and the same source.
7 It is VS-61 who registered, first of all, records in his
8 administration; and at the same time, he compiled some kind of an
9 overview of the departures, which is the list of 280. Whereas, in the
10 parish records, there is no destination, there is no record of where they
11 went to; in the summary of departures, there is a destination. For every
12 family, we have information about where they went to. This is what is
13 the basis for this table, and I think it is a good proxy, the
14 destination, in this case.
15 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Let me take this opportunity to
16 ask you another question that has to do with this table, but also that
17 has to do with your report in general.
18 Would you have drawn another conclusion out of these figures on
19 Croats who left to Croatia
20 Croats because your sources are the refugee lists. Would you have
21 maintained your conclusion had you known that one of these lists is a bit
22 doubtful, in light of what we mentioned yesterday regarding, you know,
23 the events around Mr. Grujic? Would you have drawn the same conclusions
24 or not had you known that one of these sources was a bit doubtful?
25 THE WITNESS: Well, I am not worried about Mr. Grujic at all
1 because he's not the one who made this list. This list comes from an
2 authority who is mandated to keep records of refugees. So that he
3 requested the list from the appropriate ministry doesn't bother me,
4 honestly, too much, because I know there is a serious group of people who
5 take care of records of refugees in Croatia, and they do it in the right
6 way. I had the opportunity to visit them, to meet with them. I was in
7 the archive in which they keep the files. I saw how they computerised
8 the records, how they make databases, and my impression of all this was
9 that this was a professional group. This is one thing.
10 That I obtained or we obtained the list in response to an RFA
11 that was sent to Colonel Grujic is also not a big issue to me, because at
12 the same time I have the source. I have the book, and from the book, I
13 know who made the list. That is what matters. The actual source of the
14 list is VS-61, and it is exactly the same source as for my parish
16 I do have to trust my parish records because it is not a new
17 thing in demography. It has a history of hundreds of years that these
18 records are used in all kinds of studies, and produce reliable results.
19 They are taken extremely seriously in demography. So I am still good, I
20 feel, with my sources and my results. So that is how I feel about it.
21 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I have a brief question, if I
24 Could you please take a look at table 18 on page 31. It's on the
25 page 31 in the English version, table 18. It would be nice to have the
1 table on the screen. Now we have it.
2 On the top table, there is a breakdown by age groups. Out of the
3 722 people, you have -- we have a distribution with age group and the sex
4 also, men/women.
5 Now, I'm going to look at the able-bodied men who were able to
6 work, the category of people between 20 and 60, age 20 to 60. In that
7 bracket, you know, you have 24 to 25 to 29 and all the way to 55, 59. So
8 I will set aside the children, I'll set aside the seniors that are over
9 60. I'll only take adults, working adults, and only men, because in
10 these type of migrations, usually it's men who take the decision and then
11 they pack their belongings and wife and child, and everybody has to go.
12 So if I sum up these men between 20 to 60, I see there are about
13 170 Croats that are in that bracket, 170 decision-makers, if I could call
14 them so, who decided to pick up their belongings and go, taking with them
15 maybe children and grandparents and so on. So this decision was made by
16 170 people. Do you see this is what happened?
17 If I sum up your tables --
18 THE WITNESS: There is a group of individuals for whom age is
19 unknown; and for men, this group is 178. This is the last category
20 reported in the table. So the 170 Your Honour just mentioned is a
21 minimum number of decision-makers. But if we go to the table right next
22 to this one, then we have the corrected numbers, and then the number will
23 be bigger, if it's far more than 170. This makes --
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. But in this very
25 large migration of people going from Serbia
1 have about 200 decision-makers who decided to pick up their stuff and go.
2 THE WITNESS: I would think about 280 because these are the
3 families mentioned, and this is consistent more or less with this table.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I agree with you. Fine. Let's
5 say 280, let's even say 300. There are 300 decision-makers who, for some
6 kind of reason, decided to go. You agree with that, you agree with that
8 THE WITNESS: Yes, I would agree, but we are speaking only about
9 the year 1992, and actually a period, not the entire year, but a part of
10 the period. It makes sense, yes.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, we are in 1992.
12 THE WITNESS: This would be mainly Croats -- exclusively Croats,
13 actually, this number, I believe.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Absolutely.
15 I believe that we might have explored some different avenues, and
16 I do remember that Mr. Seselj is cross-examining at the moment.
17 So you have the floor.
18 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation].
19 Q. Ms. Tabeau, why did you not act as a conscientious and moral
20 scientist, and why did you not, at the very beginning of the expert
21 report, provide comparative data; ethnic composition of Croat, according
22 to the census in 1991; the ethnic composition of Serbia or Vojvodina,
23 according to the 1991 census, on the other side; then the ethnic
24 structure of Croatia
25 structure of Vojvodina, according to the census of 2002? You say
1 Vojvodina is a lot smaller than Croatia
2 Statistically, it means nothing. Vojvodina has a population of two
3 million, Croatia
4 straight away with the absolutely exact figures. They don't matter at
7 population numbers. So why did you not provide that? Your objective
8 should be to come to the truth and to explain the process; whereas, you
9 tendentiously falsify the process with inaccurate data outside any kind
10 of serious context.
11 A. Well, I didn't see it necessary to include this particular
12 comparison of the populations in Croatia and Vojvodina, as the focus of
13 my report was just one village in Vojvodina. So I just didn't see it
14 necessary. Moreover, I don't see this kind of work as a game of numbers.
15 This is a wrong perspective. I think it is necessary to focus on a
16 particular case and what actually can be shown in a justified manner for
17 this particular place, and this is what I did to keep the discussion
18 focused and relevant to this case.
19 Q. You are talking about the broader context only when it supports
20 your point of departure or your basic aim to justify the indictment; and
21 if it doesn't suit your purposes, then you neglect the entire context;
23 A. That is not true. I appreciate the importance of the broader
24 context, but I do not like the game of numbers. This is one thing. The
25 broader context, if we speak about really broad context, it's much
1 broader than the two censuses for Croatia and Vojvodina, 1991 versus
2 2002. It is the numbers that need to be placed in a perspective, and the
3 perspective is the broader socio-economic and political situation in the
4 region. I didn't feel qualified to make any statements about these kind
5 of broader contexts.
6 I'm a demographer and not a politician or historian or economist.
7 So this is a work, a project that is meant for a much broader group than
8 just demographers, I believe.
9 Q. Your expert report doesn't show that you're a serious
10 demographer. The only thing I see is that you are a not very skilful
11 manipulator. You say that you don't like the game of numbers, but that
12 is exactly what you are doing by --
13 MS. BIERSAY: [Previous translation continues] ... Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, do not say that
15 Ms. Tabeau has been playing with numbers. She made a report. She was
16 mandated and commissioned by the OTP to do so, and that's what she told
17 us. Maybe the report could have been broader, more comprehensive, but
18 she was commissioned to do a certain job and did that very job.
19 I'm talking under her control, but I believe that if she had been
20 given a broader topic to study, she would have studied a broader topic.
21 But she was asked to do a very specific job that was focusing on a
22 specific locality.
23 Right, Ms. Tabeau, you had a specific job? You were commissioned
24 by the OTP to do something, and you were not asked -- the OTP didn't ask
25 you to do this or that, but gave you a job?
1 THE WITNESS: That is correct. This is what I said yesterday,
2 and when we discussed causes of migration, I said I was not tasked to
3 study the causes. My task was to describe out-migration, and this is
4 what I did.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Proceed.
6 Mr. Seselj, proceed.
7 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation].
8 Q. Did you have statistical data about the population census dating
9 to 1981 in Vojvodina?
10 A. I have some published statistics, aggregate statistics. I didn't
11 have the actual data, census data, in my office.
12 Q. Do you have any information to this effect, that from the period
13 from 1981 to 1991, Vojvodina had a negative balance of births; that is to
14 say, that the population increase was negative and the white plague, as
15 we called it, reigned with a negative balance of births?
16 A. I suggest we refer to table 4 in my report. That actually is a
17 review of the population growth in Vojvodina since 1948. This is a table
18 that is based on published statistics on the population of Vojvodina,
19 census statistics. I didn't make the table. I took it from a published
20 source, which is mentioned under the table. It is page 15 in the report,
21 page 15, table 4 in the report.
22 Q. Why aren't you giving me short answers to my short questions? My
23 question was short. Your answer takes 15 minutes. Now, do you know that
24 this negative balance was with 21.000 inhabitants between the 1981 and
25 1991 census - just say "yes" or "no" - in the whole of Vojvodina, almost
1 21.000 people?
2 A. This is what the table says, only that what you said about the
3 natural increase, it was not negative. All the major components which
4 was positive of the population growth was because of the natural
5 increase, and the main factor contributing to the negative growth was the
6 migration balance, and this is what this table says. So the population
7 growth is a result of two factors: Natural population growth, which is
8 the difference between the births and the deaths; and migration balance.
9 According to the changes in these two factors, populations grow or
11 You are right, when saying that in 1981 to 1991, the overall
12 growth was negative. So the population size dropped by approximately
13 21.000. That is very correct. This is what this table says, but the
14 factor behind this drop is the migration balance. This what is shown in
15 this table. The migration was negative, so people were leaving this
16 province already in this decade.
17 Q. What was the reason for people leaving during that decade? It
18 was still a period of communism between 1981 and 1991, so what was the
19 exclusive reason for people's departure?
20 A. Well, I think that you will tell me because it is not what I
21 discussed in my report. I may think of all kinds of reasons. I may
22 think of economic migration, educational migration, any kind of
23 migration, but you probably have more specific information about this.
24 Q. Well, I haven't come here to teach you, Ms. Tabeau. You should
25 have learnt those things a long time ago. You should have researched
1 them and then, as an expert, explain them to me here because I'm a
2 layman. I'm an amateur in the subject of demographer, so it's up to you
3 to explain things to me and not the other way around.
4 But, anyway, is it true that negative growth -- negative
5 population growth was recorded in all national groups between 1981 and
6 1991 among the Serbs and Hungarians and Croats and Rumanians and
7 Ruthenians and all the rest?
8 A. Your literature from Serbia
9 migration balance in the period up to 1991 as developmental migration,
10 with temporary work abroad. So I think that is the explanation. People
11 were leaving because they wanted a better life and more money, and this
12 is why this was happening. That is how I -- how I can explain this. It
13 is all in my report, so you can look at it.
14 Q. Those are basically unidentified sources because what we call the
15 white plague is something that Vojvodina has confronted for decades, but
16 that's not my main point. You're not answering my question, actually.
17 Is it true and correct that the negative population growth is
18 something that each national community in Vojvodina had in the period
19 between 1981 and 1991? Just answer my question directly, "yes, it's
20 true," "no, it's not." Why are you saying all these other stupid things?
21 A. Well, the population growth was negative between 1981 and 1991,
22 that is correct.
23 Q. Was it negative growth in all the ethnic communities? You had
24 the figures before and everything was published in detail. There's a big
25 book about all that, the results of the population census taken in 1981.
1 I would have it here before me had I not been restricted communication
2 with my associates.
3 A. I don't know what was the distribution, ethnic distribution, of
4 the population growth, so I can't say whether this growth --
5 Q. All right. So you don't know.
6 A. For ethnicities, I don't know.
7 Q. Don't swallow up all my time. Just say you don't know, that's
8 honest, and we can move on. You've eaten up all my time.
9 Anyway, do you know that the negative population growth is
10 something that all national communities had in Vojvodina between 1991 and
11 2002, with the exception of Serb refugees, who settled there during that
12 period of time, so Serbs, Hungarians, Croats, Rumanians, Ruthenians, and
13 all the others? Do you know about that? Are you aware of that?
14 A. So what kind of settlers are you speaking of; Kosovo Serbs, for
16 Q. I'm leaving to one side the Serbs who came from Croatia,
17 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Kosovo. I'm just referring to the Serbs who
18 lived there in 1991 in Vojvodina and all the others, all the other ethnic
19 groups. They had a negative population growth from 1991 to 2002; is that
21 A. Well, we still can refer to this table I have just used, that
22 would be table 4; and, obviously, you are wrong. Between 1991 and 2002,
23 the overall growth was positive, and this was thanks to the huge
24 immigration, that means people arriving in Vojvodina. This is mentioned
25 in this table, and the population growth --
1 Q. Well, good heavens, what is all this that you're telling me?
2 Listen to what I'm asking you. Don't mention immigration growth. We're
3 talking about -- let's exclude immigration growth for the time being and
4 imagine that nobody had come into Vojvodina in this period of 11 years to
5 settle. Just the population who lived there in 1991, just take that. In
6 2002, there's a negative growth, both Serbs and Croats and Hungarians and
7 Rumanians and Ruthenians.
8 I'm asking you an extremely simple question, but you don't seem
9 to understand me, or else you're pretending not to. I hope that's the
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Tabeau, we're now dealing
12 with extremely complex matters, and those of us who are not well versed
13 in maps may find it difficult to understand what it's all about.
14 Let's go back to the beginning and look at the table in your
15 report at page 15. According to this table, there's no doubt that
16 between 1981 and 1991, if we take the census into account, the number of
17 inhabitants declined, the population declined, and the figure is 21.000
18 people. No one can deny this. What is the cause of this decline?
19 You gave the answer to that question, and Mr. Seselj mentioned it
20 as well. This is due to the departure of inhabitants from the area,
21 probably for reasons related to employment, the communist regime at the
22 time, the situation in Vojvodina. So people were leaving to find work
23 somewhere else. This trend lasted for ten years. So this trend existed
24 before, and it does not relate to Serbs who would later come to the area,
25 but it relates to people in Vojvodina itself.
1 So could this trend, this phenomenon, have continued in the
2 period between 1991 and 2002, a trend that has nothing to do with the
3 war, with the conflict, with increasing tensions, with the speech of the
4 6th of May, 1992, according to the Prosecution? So this phenomenon, this
5 trend, didn't it also apply to the period between 1991 and 2002, and
6 shouldn't, as a result, the figures, the statistics, be seen in a
7 different light because of this so-called white plague that could have
8 continued between 1991 and 2002? It's a phenomenon, it's a trend that
9 has absolutely nothing to do with the events that took place in 1991 and
11 What's your take on this, because I believe that's what
12 Mr. Seselj is driving at. It may be a bit difficult to understand, but
13 I, myself, understood that it was the precise question he was trying to
14 ask you. So what do you have to say?
15 Just one thing, if these events had not taken place, if
17 census of 2002 have registered a decline of the population anyway because
18 people would have continued to leave to go to Canada, Germany
20 Did you understand my question?
21 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes, I did. Thank you for the explanation.
22 I believe there was an out-migration related to looking for a
23 better life before the 1991 census, and this is expressed in table 4 by
24 the negative migration balance. I believe that around 1990, 1991, the
25 whole region was affected by dramatic events, by war in Croatia, Slovenia
1 first. So this is a completely, total different situation which most
2 certainly had impact on decisions, migratory decisions, of people.
3 I believe - this is a belief; I didn't study it - that those who
4 already were abroad, having jobs in, for instance, Western countries,
5 might have decided to stay there and not to come back home in this
6 period, as the times were not good for returning home; or perhaps on the
7 contrary, perhaps they wanted to protect their property. Who knows? But
8 I tend to believe the decisions would be just to stay.
9 We are speaking about here, after the 1991 census, is a totally
10 different situation, and this is expressed also in table 4 with data for
11 1991-2002. Everything changes in the period. Look at the rate of
12 natural increase. People don't want to have children anymore because it
13 is somehow too uncertain to decide to have a family in this period.
14 There are -- the rate of natural increase is negative in this period, so
15 that's an important difference between the previous period and this
17 So I don't think that the assumption of a continuation of the
18 developmental migration from before 1991 applies here. I don't think
19 that, demographically speaking, we can just assume that it is just
20 continuing and even more people are leaving because they want a better
21 life. I don't think that the motivation for migration remains exactly
22 the same in these two periods. It's unlikely it remains the same because
23 the whole situation is upside down. It is a conflict going on there in
24 these areas, so this changes people's perspectives on everything.
25 I'm not sure I answered the question, but shortly I don't believe
1 that developmental migration continued after 1991. It is a different
2 form of migration that we have to think of. It is - I'm sorry to say
3 this - it is forced migration. This is how we call it in demography, and
4 this migration would cover, of course, refugees and would cover voluntary
5 migration, "voluntary" in the sense that nobody expelled these people
6 physically from their houses, but voluntary but war-related first.
7 Migration, we have to think of this migration as a consequence of
8 conflict as well. That is the motivation for people's decision in this
9 period in the first place, I believe. So it's not that things weren't
10 there before 1991. The situation has changed totally in the beginning of
11 the 1990s, and so did the motivation for migration. This is what I think
12 about it.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I believe that the
14 witness has now answered your question. According to her, after 1991,
15 the trend that existed before did not continue to apply.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Previous translation continues] ...
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, I thought that she had
18 answered. You don't share my view. Please try to establish that. But
19 according to me, she's answered your question.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I didn't receive the interpretation
21 of those last words of yours.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No. I was saying that I
23 believe that she has answered by saying that the trend that took place
24 between 1981 and 1991 did not continue to apply after 1991 because
25 according to the witness, other motivations came into play, related,
1 among other things, to the war, and that explained why people were
2 leaving. The same -- the causes or the motivations of the previous
3 period did not apply anymore. That's what I understood, and you may not
4 agree with the witness. We may not agree with the witness, but that's
5 what she answered.
6 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Ms. Tabeau, instead of being a demographer and entering into
8 research, you're being a philosopher and trying to think. Now, you think
9 there are different reasons between 1991 and 2002, and not the economic
10 reasons, prompting people to leave, but we had a blockade in Serbia
11 Federal Republic of Serbia, a terrible economic blockade already in 1992,
12 May 1992, in fact. That's when it started. Had it not been for
13 intimations of that blocked, people were already leaving.
14 Then at the end of the 1990s - I don't know what year it was
15 exactly - Hungary
16 prosperity of Hungary
17 no employment, salaries were tantamount to just two German marks, whether
18 you were working in the socialist sector or the private sector, or
19 wherever. Your expert report shows none of that.
20 Secondly, we have a negative growth for Ruthenians and Rumanians
21 and Slovakians and Hungarians and everybody, except the Roma in
22 Vojvodina. You had this data at your disposal. The Prosecution has the
23 data at their disposal. So why are you inventing things and saying that
24 those factors were not active in the 1990s, when there was social
25 poverty, the main economic factor at the time?
1 A. If I may comment on this, please look at table 4 again. Why,
2 then, is there a huge immigration in this period of the economically-poor
3 development or non-development? There is a number of migration balance
4 given in the table, and it is huge and positive. We all know these were
5 mainly Serbs coming in, so they didn't care for the economic situation.
6 For the fact that there was no bread, there were problems,
7 everything was expensive, they were coming in. This is the proof that
8 I'm right by saying that the motivation for the population movement in
9 this period is not the same as before 1991. It is a different motivation
10 and has to do with the conflict. It has to do with the conflict in
12 after all as well later; right?
13 But it is rather certain that you are not right by saying that
14 they were -- that people were pushed out from Serbia and Montenegro
15 Vojvodina, as part of Serbia
16 life elsewhere. I would disagree with that.
17 Q. Because you did not approach this research seriously. Had you
18 done that, you would have known what the total figure was of Serbs who
19 moved out of Serbia
20 out to Canada
21 those years of blockade, but you did not research that.
22 You say -- or rather, you are refuting what I'm saying by the
23 fact that enormous numbers of Serbs came in. Yes, Serbs came in, but
24 they were saving their bear lives. They were fleeing from Croatia. They
25 were expelled from Croatia
1 and they fled even to an impoverished country. You, as a demographer,
2 are not in a position to understand that because you're not a real
3 demographer. You're just carrying out the instructions of the OTP in
4 order to support a false indictment. That's the core of the matter.
5 Secondly, in this table, you say that 81.000 people in Vojvodina
6 is the number of people who died, and that more people died than were
7 born, and that pertains to the entire population of Vojvodina. Don't go
8 into the migrants now. You have the death rate and the birth date. The
9 difference between the births and the deaths, natural deaths, is 81.171;
10 is that right?
11 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I did not wish to interrupt you,
12 Mr. Seselj. I was waiting for you to finish, but I wanted to say that
13 you surrendered based on the indictment, that was confirmed by the Judge,
14 so you can't talk about a false indictment. You cannot use that sort of
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, apparently, at the
17 time, the economic situation -- I say "apparently" because we don't have
18 any evidence to that effect; Mr. Seselj is telling us that. But when
19 somebody tells me something, I tend to trust him or her implicitly.
20 So, at the time, there was an economic blockade, and Mr. Seselj
21 is telling us that people would be paid about two Deutsche marks a month
22 at the time. He also added something that we to not see in your report,
23 and that Serbs - and here I'm not talking about Croats - but that Serbs,
24 because of this situation, decided to leave, decided to go away from
25 Vojvodina. They left.
1 But we also know that other Serbs arrived in Vojvodina because
2 there were refugees. And in the table we find, at page 10 of your
3 report, we have the numbers of Serbs in Hrtkovci in 1991, from 531 in
4 1991 and 2.396 in 2002. We must remember that Serbs coming from Croatia
5 or other places arrived.
6 But notwithstanding that fact, there must have been Serbs who
7 left the region during that period for economic reasons. Undeniably,
8 some Serbs left. Can you agree with that? Can you agree that it may
9 very well be that some Serbs left Hrtkovci, left Vojvodina, for reasons
10 linked to the blockade, because they were only paid two Deutsche marks a
11 month and they decided to go somewhere else where they would earn much
12 more money? Would we be mistaken to take that factor into account?
13 THE WITNESS: First, a general comment. Every migration decision
14 is a result of a complex net of factors. There are generally two groups
15 of these factors, pull and push factors, and the interplay between these
16 two groups of factors is the result of migratory decisions.
17 Normally, in peace, the pull factors play a very important role.
18 The grass is greener, of course, elsewhere. This is basically how it is.
19 But in politically-unstable times, in conflict situations, these are the
20 push factors that play a role in the first place. Although I haven't
21 done, myself, research on this, these are well-known facts in demography.
22 If you wish, I can look for publications and bring you papers, and this
23 can be discussed in a more justified -- scientifically-justified manner.
24 Well, of course, regarding the specific question, of course I am
25 not saying that no Serb left because the economic situation was so bad,
1 but the situation in this period cannot be seen exclusively as economic
2 because this was the political situation that was together with the
3 economic situation. That must be seen as the push factors. At the same
4 time, if people had some opportunities anywhere to go, then the strong
5 push factors and these opportunities there were resulting in certain
7 So I'm not saying that Serbs all stayed and Croats all have gone.
8 That is very incorrect. This is not what I'm saying, because the real
9 life is never black and white. There were cases of Serbs who migrated
10 because of the bad economic situation, but at the same time as the bad
11 political situation, of tensions, of intensifying ethnic conflict, and
12 et cetera, et cetera. I didn't study these, but I'm sure that there were
13 other witnesses who are speaking about these general factors. So this is
14 all I am saying. I hope that is all.
15 But regarding the question you asked me, first of all, there was
16 a specific question about the natural increase between 1991 and 2002.
17 Yes, it was negative, and the number is in table 4 on page 15. Actually,
18 I already answered the question related to the out-migration of Serbs
19 from Serbia
20 do not have figures of that in my report.
21 I'm pretty sure there are publications on this, and, again, I can
22 look for these publications. There will be articles produced in Yugoslav
23 survey and other authors. If Your Honours wish to see these kind of
24 publications, again, to avoid speculation and to have figures, I would be
25 most happy to find these publications.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's 10.00. We need to break
2 for 20 minutes.
3 --- Recess taken at 10.00 a.m.
4 --- On resuming at 10.23 a.m.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Court is back in session.
6 Mr. Seselj, you have the floor.
7 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Ms. Tabeau, how do you explain the fact that from 1991 until
9 2002, the population of the Slovak ethnic minority went down by
10 11 per cent?
11 A. I didn't explain this in the report, and I'm not explaining this
12 now as well. I would need to study it.
13 Q. Do you have information to the effect that 10.9 per cent was the
14 decline in the Slovak ethnic minority population?
15 A. Sir, as I said, I didn't study it and I don't want to speculate
16 about it. So I can't confirm or approve or disapprove the number you are
17 giving me accused.
18 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation] Could this document be put on the
19 ELMO? The 65 ter document number is 02754.
20 Q. How come you work at the OTP and don't know about this document?
21 That's a shameful thing, and we got that document along with the set for
22 this witness.
23 Do we have it on the ELMO now? Right. Not yet? We have the
24 first page. Please, let's see the second page.
25 This is information on trends --
1 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note; it's too fast for
3 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation] Very well. Next page.
4 Q. See, according to the census of 2002, in Vojvodina there is
5 56.000 Slovaks; and in 1991, there was 63.545. At the end of the first
6 paragraph, it says that the number went down by 6.908, or rather,
7 10.9 per cent. You never had this document in your hands?
8 A. Well, I didn't say I did not receive information, census data,
9 from the 2002 census on several minority groups in Vojvodina. I didn't
10 say this. I said I didn't study this. The focus of my report was on
11 Croats, mainly, and Hungarians as the representatives of the non-Serbs in
12 Vojvodina and Hrtkovci, on the first place.
13 Q. However, when you make such far-reaching conclusions as far as
14 Croats are concerned, why didn't you compare the situation regarding the
15 Croat ethnic minority with the Slovak, Romanian, Ruthenian, and other
16 minorities? Wouldn't a conscientious scholar do that straight away? If
17 a conscientious scholar were to see that there was a reduction of
18 11 per cent in the number of Slovaks, and what was the decline in the
19 number of Croats, about 20 per cent? So Slovaks, 11 per cent less.
20 Do you know that Slovaks live in compact communities in
21 Vojvodina, in Backi Petrovac, Kovin, Stara Pazova, Borci? Don't you know
23 A. One correction to the transcript, line 17: "I didn't say I did
24 receive," instead, this is how the transcript should read in this line,
25 line 17: "I didn't say I did not receive..."
1 I did receive the data on the 2002 census.
2 Q. You have no explanation?
3 A. No, I was going to come to my answer to your question.
4 It is in my report that all these other minorities are shown in
5 table 2 for Vojvodina, and we can refer to this table jointly as the
6 so-called "others." So what I really didn't do is I didn't separate
7 every single minority group, as I did with Croats and Hungarians, because
8 the other groups are shown jointly as "others."
9 Q. All right. That's not an answer to my question. Do you have an
10 explanation as to how come the number of Hungarians went down by
11 15 per cent? Were the Hungarians persecuted, expelled? You don't know.
12 Okay. Let's move on --
13 A. No, no, no. I have an answer. I don't see the 15 per cent
14 decline for Hungarians in my table for Vojvodina. This is one.
15 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation] All right. Could I have 02757,
16 that's the 65 ter number, and then I will show you. It seems that I have
17 better glasses than you do. The OTP provided me with all this
18 information. It would have been better had I been the Prosecution expert
19 witness for demography.
20 Could we have the document, and could Ms. Biersay not get up
21 because we are moving on to the core of the matter.
22 Q. Look at the second paragraph. The Hungarians went down by --
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Biersay, you're on your
25 MS. BIERSAY: I am on my feet to remind Mr. Seselj that these
1 sources are listed in Dr. Tabeau's report.
2 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation] Ms. Tabeau obviously has not
3 mastered this and has not used this information. Had she responded to me
4 that she was aware of this information, I wouldn't have to use this
5 document. Now, this is the document that she allegedly relies on in her
6 report and that the OTP provided to me, and that is the number of
7 Hungarians went down by 49.284 persons, or rather, 15 per cent.
8 I have to move on now, because I don't have too much time.
9 Q. Ms. Tabeau, how do you explain the fact that the Romanian ethnic
10 minority population in Vojvodina went down by 21.6 per cent from 1991
11 until 2002?
12 A. Again, I would prefer that Mr. Seselj makes exact reference to
13 the material that he's discussing. It was part of the court binder
14 prepared for this testimony, that the sources I used in the report are
15 attached in this binder. So if we could have the translation of the
16 Serbian text which is on the screen, so that we could directly confirm
17 the numbers.
18 But as far as I can see from my data in the report that are
19 coming from the specific data from the sources attached to the court
20 binder, we could at least have some idea that the numbers he's referring
21 to are correct. But without checking this, it's hard to have any
22 discussion of these numbers at all.
23 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation] Ms. Tabeau is already playing the
24 role of Prosecutor.
25 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speaker please slow down. The
1 interpreter cannot follow this at this speed.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Tabeau, we have a document
3 that comes from the OTP. This document was sent to Mr. Seselj. I assume
4 that you also obtained this document; you also probably obtained it. It
5 would be quite incredible if you hadn't seen this document. It's a
6 document that's new to me, as far as I'm concerned, but it doesn't take
7 me hours to understand a document. It does seem to be an official
8 document, and it says that the number of Hungarians had dropped by
9 15 per cent in Vojvodina between 1991 and 2002.
10 Do you agree with it, you don't agree with it?
11 THE WITNESS: Well, I am aware of these documents. These were
12 some data tables sent to us from the Office for Minorities in Vojvodina
13 with the summary text here that is on the screen related to the
14 Hungarians minority. There were data tables. As part of these data
15 tables, statistics were presented, based on census, for settlement.
16 These statistics have been processed and are presented in my report.
17 This is table 2 for Vojvodina, as a whole, and table 1 for Hrtkovci.
18 So it is not true that I didn't use this particular data. I did
19 use relevant parts of the data in my report. And if I would have looked
20 at every minority separately, my report would be much bigger than what it
21 is now. The focus of the report, as I am saying, is mainly Croats, so
22 this is the reason that I'm not referring to every single minority.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. But, generally speaking,
24 if it appears that there was a decline for all minorities, all of them,
25 one could infer from this that the phenomenon that affects minorities
1 also affected the Croats?
2 THE WITNESS: Well, it is how it is, yes. So I never said that
3 the only group that was affected were the Croats, not even one time in my
4 report. So I don't -- I'm missing the point here, but, okay, perhaps it
5 will be coming.
6 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
7 Q. And how were you able to establish the demographic situation of
8 the national community of Croats in Vojvodina without making a
9 comparative analysis with the situation of the other national minorities,
10 ethnicities? How can any scientist or person engaged in scholarly
11 investigation omit to do that?
12 A. I didn't take the analysis of Croats out of context because the
13 tables which we have been discussing, table 1 and 2, is not -- are not
14 made for exclusively Croats. All ethnic groups are there in the tables,
15 sir, and the entire population of, in table 1, Hrtkovci and Vojvodina are
16 shown. The issue is that you are telling me that I should have shown
17 every minority separately. Yes, this could have been done. I didn't do
18 it for simplicity. This is why the tables are as they are. But all
19 minorities are included in the tables. They are not excluded.
20 Q. Yes. But your simplifications were in the function of falsifying
21 scientific data and evidence because scientific evidence would have been
22 quite different had you conducted a comparative analysis.
23 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation] Let me have the 65 ter document --
24 02753 is the number, page 2. Page 2.
25 Q. Can you see there that the number of citizens of Romanian
1 ethnicity was reduced by 21.6 per cent in Vojvodina in the period during
2 the two censuses, and the number of Croats fell by 24 per cent? Can you
3 see that, Ms. Tabeau? Would you like to have my glasses, if you can't
5 A. Mine are very good. Thank you very much.
6 Q. Well, I'm waiting for your answer a long time. Can you see it or
7 not? It's the first paragraph, and I would have read through it 15 times
9 Do you know, Ms. Tabeau, that never through history, throughout
10 history, there were never any conflicts between the Serbian and Romanian
11 people and that Serbia
12 Are you aware of that?
13 A. I'm sorry. But don't ask me questions about history. But the
14 thing is, Mr. Seselj, that the population of Romanians, if you look into
15 the text, is very small compared with the population of Hungarians and
16 the population of Croats. So my selection of ethnic groups, like Croats
17 and Hungarians, first of all, were related to the population of these
18 groups in the population of Vojvodina. It doesn't make really much sense
19 to speak about every single minority if the minority group is of the size
20 of 3.000, 2.000, 5.000, in the population of two million.
21 You are referring to percentages that are related to this size of
22 populations, so that is the misleading part on your side, not on my side,
23 because my decision is justified by the size of the minority populations
24 that I took for my report. This is not a matter of bad glasses. This is
25 a matter of, you know, how you read the numbers that are on this page.
1 You really need to think a little bit what you are reading on paper.
2 It's a matter of interpretation.
3 Q. Ms. Tabeau, don't falsify things here on the spot. We're not
4 talking about 5 or 6.000 Romanians, but Romanians, according to the 1991
5 census, there were 38.809, which is just half the number of Croats. So
6 don't underestimate these statistical samples because here we see a trend
7 emerging which was present with the Serbs in Vojvodina, with the
8 exclusion of Serb refugees who have arrived in recent years.
9 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation] Now let's take a look at what the
10 situation is like with the Ruthenians, and that is 02758 under 65 ter.
11 That's the document number.
12 THE WITNESS: If I may comment on the size of minorities, if you
13 look at my table, the number Croats and Hungarians, in 1991, is about
14 400.000; whereas, the number of all others, other ethnic groups jointly,
15 including the groups you just discussed, is 268.000, approximately.
16 So, even though the size of this population was about 30.000, we
17 are still speaking of minorities that are far smaller than Croats and
18 Hungarians jointly. So that is my point, and I will defend my tables in
19 the report the way they have been done because that is the right way to
20 do it. It is often done in statistics that distributions are presented
21 for aggregate ethnic groups in which minorities of a smaller size are
22 shown together.
23 Q. And according to what methodological procedure did you link up
24 the Hungarians and Croats, when it's common knowledge that between those
25 two nations for centuries there has been a national tension, that is to
1 say, that they, Serbs and Hungarians, got on much better than the Croats
2 and Hungarians? There was animosity between them, so how do you
3 listening them up to make the number larger? Look at the 1991 census and
4 tell us how many Croats there were.
5 A. I don't link Croats and Hungarians, and I don't know about the
6 relationship between these groups and the Serbs, not the relationship at
7 present, not the relationship in the past. I just don't know about it,
8 and, you know, I don't know.
9 For the second part of the question, the size of the Croat
10 population is about 72.000, 72 or 73.000 in 1991.
11 Q. Take a look at the figure for the Ruthenians, 11.5 per cent less
12 Ruthenians. Quite opposed to what you said a moment ago, the fewer
13 numbers of the national minority, the lower the decrease. There was just
14 17.652 Ruthenians. Now there are 15.626. So the reduction was just
15 11.5 per cent; whereas, where there were larger ethnic minorities, like
16 the Slovaks and Romanians, the decrease in percentages is far greater.
17 That is -- absolutely goes against the grain of what you said a moment
18 ago, 11 and a half per cent less Ruthenians.
19 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
20 Now let's have a look at the next document. 02758 is the
21 number -- no, 02755 is the document I'd like pulled up on e-court,
23 THE WITNESS: If I may comment. Relating the size of the change
24 with the size of the ethnic group, the bigger the group, the bigger the
25 change, doesn't make sense, really. So I definitely disagree with what
1 you said. That is --
2 Q. No. You don't agree with yourself because a moment ago you
3 advocated this thesis: If the number was too few of the members of a
4 certain ethnic minority, then the percentages of decrease is higher.
5 Now, let's look at the figures which relate to the Roma. Where
6 the Roma are concerned, we have an increase of 19 per cent. How do you
7 explain that? All the national minorities or ethnicities are declining;
8 whereas, the Roma, who are all over Europe, increase as a population to
9 the tune of 19 per cent. Do you have an explanation for that?
10 A. I don't. But if you look in table 2, then you will see that all
11 other minorities, except for Croats and Hungarians, the size of the
12 population of all other minorities between 1991 and 2002 increased. So
13 is it so surprising that Roma are shown here as an increased population
14 between the two censuses?
15 Q. Well, that explanation merits being recorded in an encyclopedia.
16 Very well.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Tabeau, I'm a bit lost with
18 your answer here. You said -- you did indicate that in the category
19 called "Others," and we see this on the table, table 2, we see that
20 between 1991 and 2002, there was an increase for "Others." So in these
21 "Others," 268.294 for 1991, and in 2002, 313.551. So at least 50.000
22 people more called "Others," who came from or who arrives from God knows
24 Now, regarding this category called "Others," you might have been
25 more specific here because we find other minorities. That's what we're
1 finding out, that there are others included in this "Other." Some
2 minorities are down by 10, 15, 20 per cent, and there's one minority
3 that's on the increase, the Romas, and we have no idea why. They should
4 also be declining, but they are increasing. There's probably some
5 logical explanation, but we don't have it. There must be an explanation
6 for this.
7 So, if there's a general trend, when there's a trend - that's a
8 technical term, this trend - so when there's a general trend and if this
9 general trend impacts all minorities, including the Croats, who are also
10 a minority, shouldn't the reason that causes this decline in all
11 minorities, except for the Romas, don't you think you should have
12 identified this cause? Did you tell yourself, "Oh, minorities are on the
13 decline. Why is it? Is it why the number of Croats also declined or is
14 there a specific reason that would have to do with persecutions?"
15 Because that's the whole topic, in fact. I'm sure you understood this.
16 The Judges here will have to decide whether the Croats who are in
17 your chart left because of the consequences of harassment, intimidation,
18 speeches, and so on, whether they left because of this or whether they
19 left for different motivations, for different reasons. We're going to
20 have to decide on that.
21 THE WITNESS: Yes. There is a number of minorities in Vojvodina,
22 Croats and Hungarians being the largest of them. The decline in the
23 population size of minorities is seen, and not only for Croats and
24 Hungarians, but also for other minorities, with the exception of, for
25 instance, Roma. I don't remember but there were perhaps other minorities
1 that increased slightly in this period as well; but, generally, there is
2 a decline in minority populations in Vojvodina between these two years,
3 1991 and 2002.
4 I don't like using the table, presenting summary terms of
5 statistics to discuss these kind of issues, because the statistics for
6 2002 are not directly comparable with statistics for 1991. That is one
7 thing. So the increase in the group called, in my table, "Others," I
8 believe is partly because of changing ethnicity reports in the 2002
9 census. There is my theory - it is not that I studied this with
10 empirical data - which is that some of the Yugoslavs perhaps are here in
11 this group. Perhaps. Who knows? Perhaps some of them have become Serbs
12 in the time between 1991 and 2002.
13 So it is not a good basis, the census figures, aggregate
14 statistics, for this kind of discussion. This is what Mr. Seselj is
15 doing, using aggregate statistics and discussing the declines or
16 increases by looking at aggregate statistics.
17 So what is really important, in my view, are additional data that
18 are in the report and relate to the Croats and Hungarians that give
19 our -- give us more insight into about what was happening in this time.
20 In my view, there is no doubt about the fact that there were departures
21 of Croats, on the first place, in this period in 1992 from Hrtkovci, and
22 Vojvodina in general; and these kind of conclusions are also to be found
23 in the very same minority reports that are discussed now.
24 So if we go to the section about Croats, which is not shown right
25 now on the screen, there will be passages about why the decline of Croats
1 had taken place in this period. This is not that I wrote the passages.
2 It is that the authorities, the minority authority, wrote this passage.
3 There is a clear reference to the persecution of Croats in the period
4 already starting in 1991, and I'm quoting in my report two passages from
5 this report, minority report, which are on page 14.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's all move to page 14,
7 then. What paragraph are you talking about?
8 THE WITNESS: [Previous translation continues]... paragraph from
9 the bottom in italics, beginning with: "A major decline in the number of
10 Croats ..."
11 If I may read further: "A major decline in the number of Croats
12 in the AP Vojvodina, in relation to the 1991 census, is evident in all
13 the municipalities where a significant number of members of this minority
14 used to live. This drop is seen as a consequence of the 1991 war in the
15 immediate neighbourhood and, related to it, certain political forces at
16 the time which were heavily engaged in expelling the Croatian population,
17 especially in those populated places where they comprised a prominent or
18 relative majority of the population or represented a significant
20 So Hrtkovci is obviously such a place. The Croats are
21 40 per cent in 1991, and they are not an absolute majority, but they are
22 a majority, a relative majority, in the village.
23 The next paragraph, coming from the same source, the 2003
24 minorities report prepared in Vojvodina by the minorities authority in
25 Vojvodina. I didn't write it:
1 "The biggest decline in the Croatian population, which was mostly
2 the result of a policy of persecution of the Croatian population during
3 the years of the war in the territory of the former Yugoslavia,
4 especially in 1991 at the time of the war operations in the territory of
5 the Republic of Croatia
6 "occurred in the in the municipality of Sid
7 fell to only a third of that in the previous census," previous is 1991,
8 and the current census is 2002," that is, from 6.047 to 2.086, or,
9 expressed in percentages, a drop of 65.50 per cent. It is followed by
10 the municipality of Indjija
11 is located, "with 47.85 per cent ..." and so on and so on.
12 A number of municipalities are mentioned with the percentage
13 change, the decline in the Croat population. In reference to Hrtkovci,
14 to the Croat population of Hrtkovci, the decline is about, as far as I'm
15 correct, 67 per cent.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This text that you have just
17 read out, we need this for the transcript. Could you tell us exactly
18 what source it comes from? Who actually drafted this document?
19 THE WITNESS: The source is mentioned on page 2 of my report,
20 page 2 English version. The report is the last item listed on the page.
21 The title is "On the fluctuation in the number on Croatian ethnic
22 minority in the AP Vojvodina, 1992-2002," and the source is the
23 Provincial Secretariat for Regulations Administration and National
24 Minorities in Novi Sad
25 2003, and similar reports, I'm saying in the same paragraph, for other
1 minority groups are available as well. This is what Mr. Seselj was
2 discussing, for Hungarians, Slovaks, Romanians, Romas, Ruthenians.
3 So that's the source for these two passages that are referred to
4 in my, report and the source for the figures that we've been discussing
5 most recently.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So this is an
7 official report. It's a Serbian official report, not Croatian. This
8 comes from Serbia
9 THE WITNESS: That is correct.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And it's the same source as
11 what was shown on the screen earlier?
12 THE WITNESS: Yes.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Proceed, Mr. Seselj.
14 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
15 Q. In dealing in demographic research, you are looking for political
16 comments from people who are akin to you, from a moral and political
17 point of view. What does this political explanation have to do with the
18 information provided here? Where is proof for this thesis? In 2003,
19 Nenad Canak is in power in Vojvodina, and Nenad Canak is the spitting
20 image of the OTP, ideological and politically.
21 So what does that have to do with your research, this quotation?
22 What are you proving with this, that political players are providing this
23 kind of explanation; nothing else?
24 A. I don't know the person you mentioned, and it's not true that I'm
25 engaging in a discussion of politics in my report. A minority report
1 that is discussed in my report was, for me, first of all, the source for
2 the data which I use for Hrtkovci in my study. That is the most
3 important part of it. Secondly, there is a commentary to the data
4 provided. So that's all I can say.
5 I was just reading the commentary and choosing the data, and this
6 has nothing to do with the person who was in charge in Vojvodina of any
7 political or other structures. There is an authority who's responsible
8 for monitoring the situation of minorities in Vojvodina, and that's the
9 institute, and that's the people who send me the data. So that is the
10 end of story.
11 Again, I have no reason to distrust this group of people and
12 distrust the data. I compared the data with other published sources
13 related to the census 2002, and there were no discrepancies, so I didn't
14 have any reasons to reject the data and the source, as such. That's all
15 I can say.
16 Q. Statistical data is one thing that you use, as a demographer, and
17 political comments that you accept and quote are a different matter. As
18 for this political comment, it simply should not be in your expert
19 report, because for you to make this kind of a comment, it has to be
20 supported by the data provided in your expert report. However, on the
21 basis of the data you have available, you cannot come to this kind of an
22 explicit conclusion and then it's much easier for you to take over, at
23 face value, the political conclusion of some organ and you quote that;
25 A. I disagree. In the very same passages, especially the second
1 one, there is an overview of changes in a number of municipalities, Ruma
2 being one of them, and this is very relevant, in a statistical context,
3 for the figures in this report. I don't believe I'm making any political
4 statement in my report. I am just quoting from an authority mandated to
5 monitor the minorities, and they are trying to explain the change.
6 That's all. There is nothing about politics and me being involved in
7 making political, yeah, statements; not at all.
8 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation] Let's have this table number 1; that
9 is, 0289F. That's the 65 ter number. It has to do with Hrtkovci.
10 Q. When you were given this project, this assignment to deal with
11 the situation in Hrtkovci, you bore in mind the fact that this is a small
12 village with a population of only 2.500; right? Yes or no.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You know that statistics is a science of big numbers.
15 Statistical methods can lead to reliable information only when big groups
16 are compared. When there are small groups, small sets, the statistical
17 approach becomes unreliable. The smaller the numbers, the less reliable
18 the outcome. Therefore, it has to be submitted to different kinds of
19 checks; right? Am I right, as a layperson, when I say this in respect of
20 statistical methods?
21 A. Well, when it comes to estimating things, then of course
22 statistics is a science of big numbers, big samples, strictly speaking.
23 But statistics is much more than that. We are speaking here about
24 observed numbers. At least in my report, this is the main part of the
25 report, the observed numbers. The data I present, the list of 722, is a
1 minimum number, the minimum number that can be documented with names
2 other information about individuals. The statistics of big numbers and
3 big samples has nothing to do with that, so you are mixing up things. So
4 your comment was almost good, but not necessarily good in regard to my
5 report; not at all.
6 Q. From a demographic point of view, you just have two reliable
7 sources, relatively reliable, like aid source, but those are your most
8 reliable sources; that is, the census of 1991 and the census of 2002.
9 A few moments ago you mentioned something which is the greatest
10 nonsense you've uttered altogether, that the census of 2002 cannot be
11 compared to the census of 1991; whereas, from a statistical point of
12 view, that is the only measurable thing. That is the only thing that can
13 be compared; right?
14 Now, since you have been given the assignment to deal with a
15 village that had a population of 2.528 inhabitants, instead of seeking
16 invalid sources, as you did in relation to that priestly book and
17 whatever else you looked at, you should have gone into the database of
18 the republican statistics office of Serbia, and you should have studied
19 there --
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, Ms. Biersay is on
21 her feet. Let's see what she has to say.
22 MS. BIERSAY: I originally got up because Mr. Seselj asked a
23 question, said, "right," and continued into yet a second question. So
24 that was my original purpose for standing up. Now I'd like to request a
25 redaction to page 54, line 9, for the reasons that we previously
1 discussed in private session.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, no. No, it cannot be deleted.
3 I'm referring to Marko Kljajic's book when I say "priestly book." That
4 is a book that was published in Serbia
5 here. That cannot be deleted, the priestly book of Marko Kljajic
6 published for propaganda purposes.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Biersay, the book written
8 by this priest was published. Everybody is aware of that book. Why
9 would you want that line to be redacted where that book is mentioned,
10 because everybody is aware of that book?
11 MS. BIERSAY: I think the reference was ambiguous, and I now
12 wonder if the explication also creates a problem. But it was not clear
13 to me what he was referring to. As the Court's aware, we have certain
14 bits of evidence that could be characterized as books.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me confer with my fellow
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] After considering the matter,
19 the Trial Chamber decides to keep the transcript as it is, without any
21 Let's proceed.
22 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
23 Q. I'll repeat that question for you, Ms. Tabeau.
24 When you were given this project of dealing with a small village,
25 the most natural thing to do was, from the very outset, to go into the
1 database of the republican statistics office of Serbia and to have before
2 you all the census documents for this village, because this is 2.528
3 forms. Wasn't that the most natural thing to do?
4 A. Yes, most certainly, and this is what I did. I'm glad that you
5 are saying this. We made an RFA to the authorities of Serbia and
6 requested individual census records from Vojvodina. I would most
7 certainly could then look at the 2.528 forms, but I never received this
8 data because the data, I was told by the Serb statistical authority, was
9 confidential, and that was the reason why not. So your point is totally
10 invalid. This is what I wanted to see as an ideal approach, and it did
11 not work out because data was not provided to me.
12 Q. When was the last time that you asked for this officially?
13 A. Let me check, Mr. Seselj. It was in October 2004.
14 Q. From October 2004 until October 2008, you did not even try to get
15 this information, for all of four years. In the meantime, the Serb
16 authorities sent Radovan Karadzic here. They disclosed to The Hague OTP
17 all political -- police files, irrespective of the person that they
18 pertain to.
19 It is pointless to object here, because what I'm doing here is
20 challenging the witness's methodological approach. For fours years, the
21 expert witness did not deem it necessary to seek this information, and
22 it's not secret information. It is not secret when it is used for
23 judicial purposes.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj -- or rather,
25 Ms. Tabeau, there is a question I wanted to ask you yesterday. I didn't
1 do so, but now I have the opportunity to put that question to you.
2 Yesterday, you explained at length that you worked on the basis
3 of resources, including the parish registers, and there's nothing to
4 object to that. But I was wondering if there wasn't a fourth source that
5 you may not have considered, i.e., the registers of the municipality of
7 What prevented you from writing a letter to the persons in
8 charge, to the municipality, to ask for copies of these registers, of
9 these records? There was no need to wait for Serbia to cooperate fully.
10 You could have done that before. Why didn't you request these records
11 from the municipality, registers of births and deaths of the
12 municipality? You could have gone there yourself to have a look at these
13 records? Why didn't you do it?
14 THE WITNESS: The municipalities have the so-called vital events
15 registration. The vital events registration covers births and deaths, on
16 the first place, and they also register marriages. Migration is not
17 registered. Migration is not registered in the inter-census period. The
18 only way to make an assessment of migration is to work with individual
19 records from two censuses, compare them, and identify the number of
20 people not reported in the later census.
21 Having this done, it is then, in the next step, to look for these
22 people who are missing, say, "missing," in the census records, using
23 sources on displaced population and refugees. This was my initial plan,
24 this is what I found the optimal approach, and this was not feasible.
25 I must stress I have made many efforts to obtain the data that I
1 needed for this project. That was not possible for me to work with the
2 optimal data, and I believe the data used instead, parish records,
3 there's nothing wrong with them. This is a very good source of
4 information on, as well, migration; not only births and christenings and
5 marriages, but also migration because the record of migration is taken in
6 the parish books. The same with refugees, it's a very relevant source.
7 Yes. So that is what is my answer to this question.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. But couldn't you have
9 used another source? I'm not sure, my question may not be relevant, but
10 I suppose that these people at the time, the Croats, the Serbs, the
11 Hungarians, and members of minorities, these people may have paid taxes,
12 local taxes or what have you, but it would be surprising if this had not
13 been recorded somewhere, everything related to taxes, to the payment of
14 taxes by the population. Did you reflect on that?
15 Did you wonder maybe if in 1991 the Croats were paying taxes, but
16 not in 2002; in other words, they had left in the meantime? Did you
17 consider that possibility?
18 THE WITNESS: I didn't think about taxes. Well, it's unlikely
19 that I would be given access to the tax records in Vojvodina and Serbia
20 It's very questionable. It's even more unlikely than receiving the
21 census records, as the information contained in tax records is far more
22 sensitive, of course. What I would need would be a full record of
23 information with names of the individuals, addresses, and the tax record.
24 So that is a lot of information. I'm really very skeptical about
25 obtaining this source.
1 I don't think there are sources that report on migration.
2 Migration is known in demography to be the phenomenon that is most
3 difficult from the point of view of sources. It's very hard to study
4 migration, even in normal times, because migration is simply not
5 systematically registered; and people who move don't automatically, after
6 having moved, go and register themselves as migrants in a new country or
7 in a new territory. So that is a very complicated phenomenon to study.
8 This is part of my decision why I used the parish records.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, I fully agree with you.
10 But if you had 280 families paying taxes in 1991, and if in 1992 and 1993
11 they don't pay any taxes anymore, this may be evidence that they have
12 left, indeed, because they are not paying any taxes. But I don't know
13 anything about the tax system in the region, so my question or my comment
14 may not be relevant.
15 But this may be an avenue to explore to identify these people,
16 because in legal proceedings, in judicial proceedings, that's a solution
17 you can use to find people who have disappeared, provided, of course,
18 that these people paid taxes. Because if they don't pay any tax, then
19 it's completely irrelevant, although they might be recorded as not paying
20 any taxes.
21 But, in any case, it's something you did not actually consider?
22 THE WITNESS: No. One thing was what I said. Another thing, it
23 is not only important to know that people left, so that means stopped
24 paying taxes at some point. It's important to know when they left, and
25 that was one of the major issues, the timing of departures. And from
1 this point of view, I wouldn't expect that the tax register would provide
2 me with this information. So from this point of view, it is really
3 useless. That people left, a group of people of Croat ethnicity, is
4 rather obvious. I also used the census comparison, knowing even that
5 there are certain biases, but thank God they don't apply to the Croat
6 population to the extent that they apply to the population of Yugoslavs
7 and others.
8 Croat population is unbiased by trends in the perceptions of
9 ethnicities, in my view, relatively, compared with other groups. The
10 same with Serbs, the same is with Hungarians. So, for these three
11 groups, I have relatively good comparison based on the census data. So
12 there is no doubt there were departures from the village. The question
13 was when these departures were taking place, and this is why parish
14 records is an excellent source to study this as a source recording on the
15 decisions they made, you know, to go and ask for the request.
16 The decision, as such, as we discussed, is not the departure
17 date, in itself; however, it is a decision, and this is what really
18 matters. People were getting ready to leave, to take off, to go away
19 from there; and that is, as such, it is an excellent measure of these
20 decisions. And from this point of view, this is an important piece of
22 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Ms. Tabeau, do you know that on the population -- in the
24 population census in 1991 and the census in Serbia in 2002, the people
25 conducting the census introduced a personal ID number for each citizen?
1 Do you know about that, that the people conducting the census did that?
2 A. If you're speaking of the JMBG, then the number was introduced
3 even earlier. It was in 1981 [Realtime transcript read in error "1991"].
4 The JMBG is the personal identification number.
5 It was "1981," not "1991." I'm referring to the transcript.
6 Q. Well, this is just terrible. I'm asking you about 1991 and 2002.
7 I'm not interested in anything before that. What do I care about 1981?
8 I'm asking you whether you know that on the basis of the JMBG number, the
9 personal ID number, you can look up the register and see the name of the
10 person listed. Is that clear to you?
11 A. In the 1991 and 2002 censuses, most certainly the JMBG is used.
12 It's associated with individuals, so there's a name and date of birth and
13 address and a lot of other data items associated with this -- through
14 this number.
15 Q. Therefore, there was no need for a lengthy answer like that, but
16 you can follow the names. It is possible to follow the names from the
17 1991 census to the 2002 census. You can look at the names of each and
18 every citizen. You can follow them.
19 So if in 2002 there is a name missing, you can search for that
20 name. You can search other sources to see where the person went. You
21 can look at the death registers, if the person died; in the residence
22 registrar, if he's changed addresses; and so on and so forth. Just say
23 am I right or not with a yes-or-no answer, please.
24 A. Yes, you are.
25 Q. Very well. Now, do you know who Dr. Svetlana Radovanovic is?
1 A. Yes, I do. How could I not know who Dr. Svetlana Radovanovic is.
2 She has done a lot of work as a Defence expert in relation to my reports
3 in other cases.
4 Q. Yes. Now, my legal advisors engaged Dr. Svetlana Radovanovic,
5 professor at the Faculty of Geography at the University in Belgrade to
6 compile a report which will highlight the deficiencies of your expert
7 report. Dr. Svetlana Radovanovic did indeed compile that report.
8 Unfortunately, she wasn't able to hand it over to me, so I have not
9 received it because all communication with my associates were severed,
10 but I did arrive at some data and information that she had come by before
11 the report was completed.
12 Dr. Svetlana Radovanovic analysed all the 2.538 census forms of
13 1991, and all 3.428 census forms dating to 2002. That is part of the
14 databases of the Republican Institute for Statistics, and via internet
15 you can tap into that database. Unfortunately, after 2004, you didn't
16 try to tap into that database, as you told us yourself.
17 Now, in the vast number of pieces of information that Svetlana
18 Radovanovic managed to come by, I find the most interesting the
19 following: The one about how the citizens, the locals of Hrtkovci,
20 declared themselves ethnically.
21 I'll give you a few examples, you can make a note of them, and
22 you can check them out during the next break to see whether or not that
23 is true or not.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, please slow down
8 when you give these numbers, because the interpreters don't have time to
9 translate what you're saying.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, you don't have to interpret
11 figures. That's not difficult.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, please proceed.
13 THE WITNESS: I would really appreciate if this report or just
14 pieces of the results from this report be distributed among all us in
15 this courtroom, and to me in particular. As from the experience, I know
16 the work of the professor, as you said, Professor Svetlana Radovanovic.
17 It is not that her reports are completely error free and unbiased, and we
18 can take these all for granted. So before I am even able to think
19 whether this result makes sense or not, I definitely would like to see
20 the results on paper.
21 And regarding this particular example that Mr. Seselj started to
22 discuss about changing the perception of ethnicity, this is not in
23 contradiction with what was discussed earlier today.
24 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
25 Q. First of all, I can't access Dr. Svetlana Radovanovic's report
1 myself because all contact with my associates has been severed. I would
2 be happiest had those associates been able to supply me with that report
3 on time so that I could hand it over to you, so that you could have it,
4 the Prosecution could have it, and the Trial Chamber could have it. I
5 would have done my job, because I'm a layperson with respect to
6 demography, if compared to the important name that Dr. Svetlana
7 Radovanovic undoubtedly is.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis, I know why you are
9 on your feet.
10 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. The Prosecution objects
11 to the mis-information that the accused continues to put on the record,
12 that his communications with his associates have been severed, and we
13 will object each and every time he says that. It's not true. It's a
14 story that he's perpetrating and propagating through the Serbia media.
15 It is simply not true, as this Chamber has told him repeatedly.
16 We will object from this point forward each and every time
17 Mr. Seselj says that his communications have been cut off, or his phones
18 have been tapped, or that we're monitoring -- or the OTP is monitoring
19 phone lines. We will object. So I'm simply telling him at this point
20 that he can expect an objection, there will be objections, and we are not
21 prepared to allow him to continue his campaign of mis-information.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, we've already dealt
23 with this issue at length, and we have once again to revisit the matter.
24 The Chamber has already said it before. Communications are, indeed,
25 monitored by the Registry. The Trial Chamber has received your oral
1 motion, and I hope that we'll be able to rule on this motion very soon.
2 But having said that, communications have not been severed. Mr. Mundis
3 is right. Your communications are monitored. So there's nothing in the
4 world that prevents you from receiving any type of report from your
5 associates. That's the truth. But what happens is that you, yourself,
6 have decided not to receive anything anymore from them. That's your
7 choice, and we have nothing to say about this. But you have to tell
8 things as they are. Yes, indeed, your communications are being
9 monitored, but it is not true to say that you are being -- you're
10 prohibited from doing so.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment. I'll give you the
13 floor after making a few comments for Ms. Tabeau.
14 Ms. Tabeau, you were saying that you would like to have
15 such-and-such documents. Let me explain something.
16 The burden of proof does not lie with Mr. Seselj, but with the
17 Prosecution. In other words, Mr. Seselj does not have to produce all the
18 exculpatory documents. He is entitled to put questions to you. I don't
19 know this report that was mentioned. I know of this lady. Mr. Seselj
20 may decide to call her as a Defence witness. I don't know. But if
21 that's the case, then we can see what this person has to say.
22 But the discussion here seems to be about the following: I,
23 myself, asked you this morning, "Is it possible for people to declare
24 themselves as Serbs during one census and as Croats at the following
25 census," and you said, "Yes." Mr. Seselj has just established this with
1 the examples of several individuals based on their personal
2 identification numbers; therefore, there's no surprise here, because I
3 asked you the question this morning myself and you said it was possible.
4 Mr. Seselj, what did you want to say?
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In prison, there are two telephones
6 in each of the blocks. One telephone is a public telephone booth, which
7 all the inmates use to ring up their friends, family, or whoever they
8 want, and they pay for those phone calls. There's always a queue there
9 because there are 11 of us on the floor. During the day, we have other
10 things to do. We're locked up for two hours, then we have sports
11 sessions, walks, and so on.
12 Then there's another telephone which is used to contact legal
13 advisers, associates, Defence counsel, and so on, and that is free of
14 charge. By written order, I have not been allowed to use that telephone,
15 and I can only use the public booth where there's always a long queue,
16 and also I have to pay for my phone calls, which is not a negligible
17 piece of information.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I'm discovering
19 this, and so is Mr. Mundis. Up until now, my fellow Judges, myself, and
20 maybe Mr. Mundis, knew that this phone that was connecting you with your
21 associates was being tapped, but now you're telling us that it's just
22 you've been banned from using it. This is news to us, at least it is
23 news to me. I know nothing about this. I'm sure Mr. Mundis knew nothing
24 about it either.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I was forbidden, in written form,
1 in writing, to use that telephone; and from the list of privileged
2 communications, the number of my legal adviser, Slavko Jurkovic was
3 stricken from the list. As opposed to the other inmates, through this
4 telephone, I was able to call up just one number, the number of Slavko
5 Jurkovic. I couldn't dial any of the other case managers or legal
6 advisors, just Slavko Jurkovic. The other number was the number of the
7 Serbian embassy in The Hague
8 So just those two numbers, it was only those two numbers that I
9 was able to dial from that particular telephone, not from the public
10 booth. I can ring up any number. Not only will I be listened into by
11 the Registry, but every other inmate waiting in the line, queueing up to
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you can use the
14 public phone. We understand that you have to queue. It's unpleasant.
15 We understand. But I'm absolutely flabbergasted by this. The phone that
16 was tapped is a phone that you can no longer use through a written order;
17 is that what you're telling us? Can you confirm this? We're going to
18 ask the Registry about this. This is an infringement of your rights.
19 Up until now, what we knew was that you could have a privileged
20 line as long as you only used it to prepare your case. The Registrar
21 decided that he needed to monitor what you were doing. That's his
22 responsibility and the President's responsibility, and the Trial Chamber
23 has been seized with your oral motion. But that's where we stood up
24 until now. We did not know that you were banned from using this phone
25 through a written order. But you confirm this?
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. The Registry made a written
2 decision to intercept my conversations with my legal advisers, and the
3 warden issued a written order by which I was banned from using that
4 number anymore. I can only call the Serbian Embassy, or rather, the
5 consulate, Kljajic, and nobody else.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We will inquire
7 with the Registry. I'm absolutely, really surprised. It looks like an
8 invisible hand to doing its best to slow things down, to slow this trial
9 down, and to prevent us from doing our job, because with this, I mean,
10 you complain, and then we have objections from the Prosecution, the Trial
11 Chamber has to rule on this. It's a waste of time.
12 My objective, my goal, is to focus on the indictment and deal
13 with the indictment. As far as I'm concerned, all the rest is a waste of
14 time, and I believe that we're wasting a lot of time with these marginal
15 issues. It would be better to spend our time with Ms. Tabeau. What
16 she's telling us is extremely interesting. What you're saying during
17 your cross-examination is also something we have to listen to, and we
18 should not continue wasting our time on these marginal issues. But we'll
19 check with the Registry and we'll try to see what's happening.
20 Please proceed with your cross-examination. We still have ten
21 minutes before the break.
22 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
12 These are just a few examples. There are a series of others, and
13 there are also many examples of persons who declared themselves as Croats
14 in 1991 and as Hungarians in 1992. There are some who declared
15 themselves as Croats in 1991, and in 2002, they said that they are not
16 declaring their ethnicity, that they haven't decided, that they're
17 undecided. There are some who declared themselves in 1991 as Croats, and
18 in 2002, they said that they simply did not wish to declare themselves,
19 and then they were registered as unknown, unknown ethnicity. You know
20 that there's a rubric like that, too.
21 So if one were to work conscientiously on this material
22 pertaining to censuses, one could clearly establish which Croats lived in
23 1991 in Hrtkovci and which ones left; isn't that right, Ms. Tabeau?
24 A. Well, seven names of Croats who changed their report, you are
25 saying, in 2002, it's a very small number. An interesting issue would be
1 to see whether there were any Serbs who changed their ethnicity into
2 Croat in 2002. But I guess there are no such cases in the 2002 census,
3 because this wouldn't make much sense in Vojvodina, dominated by the Serb
4 population. In difficult times, nobody would like to be reported as a
5 Croat, of course; that is, a non-Serb. But that is not the point I
6 wanted to make.
7 These are all a few examples of things that we agreed on this
8 morning, and the major point is whether or not there were departures and
9 when of Croats and other non-Serbs from Hrtkovci. I don't think the
10 examples you gave us challenge the results of my report in any way. I
11 don't see that there's a significant impact of these examples on the
12 results presented in my report; not at all.
13 I never said that all Croats left Hrtkovci. That is not true.
14 Not all of them left, and it is possible that those who stayed reported
15 themselves as Serbs in the 2002 census. Why not? The ethnicity of a
16 Serb at that time was most certainly something that likely would give
17 people a feeling of being more safe. So that's okay. There are a few
18 people who report themselves in a different way in the 2002 census.
19 That's all. So what?
20 Q. But your task was to establish how many Croats had left Hrtkovci,
21 when they left and why they left, and you did not fulfill that task
22 because you didn't want to use relevant statistical sources; rather, you
23 used auxiliary and highly unreliable sources.
24 We had a witness here in the courtroom who went through
25 Marko Kljajic's list and who established which people got certificates of
1 baptism or birth certificates and hadn't left Hrtkovci at all. We had
2 that kind of competent witness here, sitting where you're sitting now,
3 and you must know who that witness is, so that I don't mention his name.
4 Do you know who that is? Do you know we had a witness like that, very
5 competent for that matter?
6 A. I would prefer you told me because I'm not watching the court
7 proceedings every day. If somebody has done this, has gone through the
8 list, and based on I would like to know what, indicating who left, who
9 stayed. I would be happy to know this, this person, the 280 names
10 checked like this, and based on what? I would like to know if this
11 person is aware of the fate of all 280 families? That would be, in my
12 view, quite impressive. It's quite a lot of work to do, to make yourself
13 familiar with the fate of 280 families.
14 Q. Had you prepared for this testimony conscientiously, and since
15 you're an OTP official, you had all of this made available to you. You
16 could have followed the testimony of witnesses who testified about
17 Hrtkovci, you had transcripts at your disposal, and now you want me to
18 provide information to you.
19 No. I'm not going to provide that kind of information to you
20 because you haven't deserved that either through your professionalism or
21 through your moral standing.
22 Now we're going to move on to a different set of questions.
23 MS. BIERSAY: [Previous translation continues]... Your Honour.
24 Mr. Seselj's comments about the witness's moral standing is completely
25 inappropriate under these circumstances, and we strongly object to his
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you've already been
3 told over and over again not to have any biased qualifiers for witnesses
4 that are under oath. You can say that you don't agree with the report
5 for such-and-such reason. You can do that, but do not insult this
6 person's morality or opinions or so forth. Ms. Biersay is absolutely
7 right in taking the floor and making an objection.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As far as I am concerned,
9 Ms. Biersay is always right. But, all right, I'm not going to do that
10 ever again. Let's move on.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Biersay is not finished.
12 MS. BIERSAY: Your Honour, since I'm on my feet, I also wanted to
13 make, for the record, the Prosecution's objection to not having been
14 provided information, presumably by an expert that was retained by
15 Mr. Seselj. Taking his argument that he was not able to get a copy of
16 the report, it is unfair to the Prosecution to commence cross-examination
17 without the information which clearly he's reading off a list. We would
18 request that information be provided to the OTP.
19 The second issue pertains to the private information given
20 through the JMBG, and we would ask that those, perhaps because they are
21 personal identifying numbers, that perhaps they should be redacted from
22 the transcript.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm absolutely opposed to that.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, we do not really
25 know how things work in your own country, according to your law, but you
1 probably know this. Regarding the census, we'd like to know whether this
2 is public data or private data that you mentioned.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All this information is public, and
4 when this information is requested, the requesting party has to have a
5 justified reason. In principle, they're public. If a journalist is
6 seeking them, the state authority is duty-bound to provide them. Then
7 also if a person who has a particular interest is seeking them, then the
8 state organ is duty-bound to provide this information.
9 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] But there's supposed to be a
10 justified reason, so it's not available for anyone. It's not --
11 THE WITNESS: If I may, census records are confidential. They
12 are protected by confidentiality laws, especially names; and JMBG, which
13 contains the date of birth of the person, recorded sex of the person, the
14 region of birth of the person. This is all very personal information,
15 and this information is not supposed to be shared in public sources. I
16 know this.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. To be on the safe
18 side, we will redact this excerpt. I trust you on this, Ms. Tabeau.
19 Mr. Seselj said something, and we also trust him, but since there is a
20 contradiction, we will be extremely prudent and --
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, there is no reason
22 whatsoever to strike from the record this information if they do not
23 tarnish the reputation or honour of an individual. Declaring oneself in
24 ethnic terms was a free thing in Yugoslavia. Everyone could declare
25 themselves whichever way they wanted to. Some people, by way of a joke,
1 declared themselves to be Japanese, Indonesian, whatever; and no one can
2 hold anyone responsible as to why they had declared themselves in a
3 particular way once and then in a different way some other time.
4 These constant interventions in the transcripts keep infringing
5 upon the transparency of these proceedings. The OTP simply don't like my
6 strong argumentation, and that's why they want to have it redacted. I
7 ask you to keep it in the transcript as recorded.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I had already dealt with this
9 this morning. I already mentioned this, your argument, and Ms. Tabeau
10 confirmed this. She did say that some people could say that they were
11 Croats in one census and declare themselves Serbs in the other census.
12 We understand that and it's on the record, but we want to protect the
13 people that you mentioned as examples. They might not want to be quoted.
14 Maybe they don't want anyone to know that they changed their ethnicity.
15 They probably don't want to see their JMBG number made public.
16 There could be a problem with this, but to be on the safe side,
17 we will redact. If later on we find out this wasn't necessary, we'll
18 lift all this. What was important for the publicity of this hearing is
19 that your argument be made and the answer also be put on the transcript,
20 and that is on the transcript. But we will redact the names and the
22 It's now time for a break, it's 10 to 12.00, and we will resume
23 in 20 minutes.
24 --- Recess taken at 11.50 a.m.
25 --- On resuming at 12.16 p.m.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have one hour left for this
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Shall I continue?
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, please proceed.
5 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Ms. Tabeau, you didn't answer my question. Why, for a full four
7 years, did you not ask to be allowed to access the database of the
8 Republican Institute for Statistics for Serbia?
9 A. I did ask in 2004, in October, as I told you; and since then, I
10 haven't repeated this request. This is all I can say. Why I didn't? It
11 didn't cross my mind that the position on this could have changed, I
12 guess, in the meantime.
13 Q. Well, how didn't it occur to you to do that, when the situation
14 in Serbia
15 and that almost all the accused had been extradited in one way or
16 another, and that police archives have been opened, police files.
17 Everything that The Hague
18 with immediately, and it never crossed your mind that that was possible?
19 Ms. Tabeau, you have neglected this project. You didn't think it
20 was serious enough, particularly serious, and you didn't know what was to
21 be expected of you in court. Had you known what you would come up
22 against in court, you would have prepared more thoroughly. Am I right in
23 saying all that, had you been aware of all the challenges here?
24 A. First of all, I believe I have prepared very thoroughly and my
25 report is a very thorough report. I want to draw the attention to the
1 fact that the report is dated as of 2006. So it was long ago when the
2 report needed to go finished and submitted, and this is what I did. I
3 don't know about -- exactly about what has been made available recently
4 by the Serb authorities to this Tribunal; but in my view, these are the
5 latest developments that don't last for more than a couple of months,
6 latest months, and not date back in 2006, when my deadlines were
7 represented to me.
8 Q. But you did have the possibility subsequently of adding to your
9 report and you could even enter corrections, and you could do that even
10 the day before yesterday. You could do that; right? In your proofing
11 session with the Prosecution, you could have entered some corrections had
12 you been doing your work conscientiously; right?
13 A. I don't know about corrections that you are suggesting to be made
14 in the report. I believe my report is finished, a finished product, and
15 I didn't make any corrections, except for annex A, in which dates of
16 birth, a number of them, were corrected. Well, if this is the wish of
17 this Chamber, I will be happy to update my report by requesting the
18 census data once again and the relevant records on IDPs and refugees from
19 the Serb authorities, and redo this report for Hrtkovci in the way as we
20 discussed this morning.
21 So such an update, once the data is provided, wouldn't take long,
22 but I wouldn't expect a major shift in the patterns presented in my
23 current report.
24 Q. Well, you don't assume, Ms. Tabeau, that I would have the
25 patience to deal with you again here, if you were to write your report
1 again. You had four years at your disposal, you didn't do it, you didn't
2 avail yourself of any reliable sources. You turned towards unreliable
3 sources, and now here you're glorifying the church books as reliable
4 sources. It is a source for historical demography, that is true, and it
5 is a source in states in which the church has the status of a legal
6 cooperation. That was what the Kingdom of Yugoslavia
7 had public authorisation to keep the records.
8 However, in communist Yugoslavia from 1945 onwards, the church
9 was not a public and legal corporation and had no legal authority. Is
10 that clear to you?
11 A. It doesn't really matter what was the status, legal status, of
12 the church, whether it had a legal corporation with the legal authority
13 in the former Yugoslavia
14 church has been taking records of major vital events in their books. And
15 I'm speaking of births and related christening records, and marriages,
16 and related marriages, marriage records, and the notes for request for
17 certificates. This is what was needed for this report, and this is what
18 really matters.
19 And from this point of view, the church books is a wonderful
20 source of information, and a very, very long-term perspective one. So it
21 not only provides with the latest data that are required for this study,
22 but also makes it possible to place the data, recent data from the 1990s,
23 in a long-term perspective. That is why I used this source. It's just a
24 very good source from the point of view of the needs of this project.
25 Q. That is absolutely untrue, everything you've said now. From 1945
1 onwards, the church did not keep records of births. It did of baptisms,
2 and it kept the books of marriages exclusively for those who were married
3 in church, and the law did not recognise church weddings, church
4 marriages, but marriages concluded in front of state organs. Are you
5 aware of that?
6 A. Well, I -- it happens I was born and was growing in a socialist
7 country, in Poland
8 socialism in Poland
10 records of christenings and marriages; and as part of the record of
11 christening, or baptism, as it is called as well, the date of birth of a
12 child is available. And as part of the book of marriages, also exact
13 information about the bride and the bridegroom is available, including
14 birth date, name of parents, et cetera, et cetera.
15 So from this point of view, the information is there in the
16 books, and it lasts for a far longer period than the post-Second World
17 War period. Church books is a rich source of information in historical
18 perspective. Church books go back hundreds of years. In countries as
20 Q. Don't repeat that. There's no point in saying that. You've said
21 it three or four times already. Do you imagine I don't know where church
22 books are kept? You've told us that umpteen times. I'm talking about
23 the situation in Serbia
24 In Poland
1 you to get married in a church and then you've done with the marriage
2 ceremony? Was that the case? You can just say "yes" or "no."
3 A. You had to have two marriages, in the municipality and in the
4 church, in order for the marriage to be recognised. Church marriages
5 alone wouldn't be recognised, indeed, but even --
6 Q. There we go.
7 A. I didn't finish. If I may finish. Even the --
8 Q. Well, I'm really not interested in what you're going to say
9 further. You've answered my question. That was what I was interested
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, please let the
12 witness finish her answer. You've put a question to her. She's
13 responding, but you're cutting her off; maybe because you don't like what
14 she's saying. But let her finish her answer.
15 What did you want to say, Madam?
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I'm not interested in Poland
17 and I don't want to expand about Poland
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you are an
20 intelligent man. You know full well that she dealt with that by saying
21 that in communist countries, and she's familiar with this system because
22 she was born in Poland
23 Churches in Poland
24 of births. So things were done that way in Poland. If it was done that
25 way in Poland
1 East Germany, and so on and so forth. That's the background of this
3 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What happened? Fire, not a
5 real fire. It's a fire drill. Security measures are currently being
6 checked as part of this drill. We are going to adjourn for now. If
7 we're allowed to come back, we'll come back before a quarter past 1.00;
8 otherwise, we'll continue tomorrow. It's a drill, it's a fire drill.
9 Let's hope that we'll not burn alive, so we have to leave the courtroom.
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.19 p.m.
11 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 23rd day of
12 October, 2008, at 8.30 a.m.